N
nzmargolies
Guest
Stone said:
Couldn't agree more. I was beginning to understand the logic behind the 60D before the D7000. Now, i think it is verging on embarrassing...
Upvote
0
- Status
Couldn't agree more. I was beginning to understand the logic behind the 60D before the D7000. Now, i think it is verging on embarrassing...
Totally agree.nzmargolies said:
I think it's really funny when people are arguing a 3D (FF with high fps and good AF) would be too expensive and impossible in that combination at this price point. Just take a look: the D700 is at the same price as the 5DMkII. Having a 51-sensor-AF and up to 8fps...
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
There is such a thing as building and marketing to specs. All these companies do it. More MP doesn't always mean a better sensor. As an example, people on this forum are asking for lower MP because it is believed that is the answer to better ISO performance. Similarly, more AF points doesn't equate to a better AF system either.
The true test is in the actual performance of the camera. It is too easy to get sucked into evaluating a product on published specs alone. If you do that you will be misled. I would bet that most buyers look at all the specs to make the purchase decision then keep the camera mode dial set to the green box. Very few buyers really know how to properly evaulate the finer points betwen simliarly priced cameras, so they default to looking at the list of published specs.
Upvote
0
N
nzmargolies
Guest
not the people on this forum or the people who would buy this camera...papa-razzi said:
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
I would bet that this is how the normal Slashdot / Gizmodo / maybe even a DP Review commenter would judge the cameras. Of course, these people don't actually buy cameras. As has been noted many times on DP Review, most of the folks who take photos for a living are too busy to talk about cameras. Lots of the folks who talk about cameras the most (like me!) just stick to what they have (could afford). Slashdot / Gizmodo types just go "First! OOH SHINEY" and in ten minutes have forgotten they own a computer.papa-razzi said:
I think that most DSLRs are bought at the local Big Box Retailer / Wal*Mart, and the buyer buys the cheapest one available. This is because the customer representative generally says "that one's a DSLR and it's cheap, sells well" and it's bought. The sad truth is that most of these people probably ought to be buying newer compacts (but as we know that's a good market too), for various reasons. I don't even think the $300 DSLRs (like the D3000, which was replaced recently but the D3100 is a $700 camera - just like the T1i which is seems more or less specced against - and whatever's similar on the Canon side, maybe the XTi or 450D, whatever) are much ahead of new compacts for image quality (not in the daylight scenes most compacts are used in), and they aren't faster operating or easier to carry.
Upvote
0
Edwin Herdman said:
This always makes me laugh. There are many pros commenting on DPR. And why would photographers be too busy to post somewhere compared to, say, lawyers or lumberjacks? I have a job that takes up a lot of time, but I can find the odd minute to post on a forum every now and then. Photographers are no different. They may choose not to post because they don't want to spend their leisure time talking about their professional activities, but that's another story.
Edwin Herdman said:
I agree with that.
Couple of things I think: firstly, whatever is released will not be called 3D, for obvious reasons, unless it really is a 3D camera. Too much confusion otherwise. Secondly, someone earlier said that the 5D3 will increase in price, because that is how it is with new bodies. Well, not in the 5 series it isn't. The original 5D was five or six hundred dollars more expensive than the mark ii, so the price trend is downward (albeit with only two data points...) thirdly: anyone hoping for a megapixel decrease in the 5 series is living in cloud cuckoo land in my opinion.
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
jouster said:
Well, I suppose this is balanced out by the pros who've spent time teaching online. A good example is the landscape photographer and filmmaker Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape. You have to pay to get the most up to date stuff but there's very useful basics on the site.
But back to DPR for a second, yes, there are some pros but it's usually very user-oriented, and not a lot of information from people who have an insight into the design and some of the finer points of the systems - but there always are exceptions.
Upvote
0
N
NotABunny
Guest
DetlevCM said:
Obviously, since it currently outputs the cleanest images (because of it's larger sensor than 1D4), that is, about 1.5 stops cleaner than a 40D.
[quote author=DetlevCM]And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.[/quote]
Actually it's exactly what is needed to take photos (without a flash) in the average indoor lighting conditions - shutter speed 200, F2.8, ISO 12800. Why? Because one would want be practical and use a 24-70 lens to have both zoom and some DOF (not like those sub F2 lenses), and shoot quick enough to avoid motion blur.
I will buy a new photocamera only if it outputs RAWs at least 3 stops cleaner than a 40D; I'm talking hardware, not with noise reduction. No "I / we know better what you need". This is what I need based on the thousands of kept pictures taken in these lighting conditions, and will pay the asked thousands of dollars (preferably for a 5D3 and 24-70 F2.8 v2) only if this happens (okay, I can go with 2.5 stops cleaner).
Upvote
0
NotABunny said:
If by 'cleaner' you mean 'less noisy' the answer is simple. Noise is inversely proportional to sensor size. A FF camera (5DII, 5DIII, even the 5DVIII if they ever get there, even paired with a 24-70 f/2.8L MkIV) will only give you an 1.3-stop hardware improvement in ISO. It's not going to get better. (Ok, maybe it will, if you're including image processing in your definition of 'cleaner' - DIGIC IV is 'cleaner' than DIGIC III, and that's a hardware change...but it's
'cleaner' because of better in-silico NR, not optical hardware, and you've already stated you aren't counting NR.)
If you want a bigger improvement in noise compared to a 40D based on sensor hardware than FF can provide, you simply need a sensor that's substantially larger than FF. Lucky for you, there are medium-format digital back photocameras. You can spend your thousands of dollars and get a Leaf or a Phase One today, and get >2 stops of improved ISO performance.
Upvote
0
N
NotABunny
Guest
neuroanatomist said:
I'm expecting a camera which at ISO 12800 (in low light) can output images as clean as a 40D at ISO 1600.
Noise levels can decrease with better technology. The human eye has no noise (sure, it lacks color in low light). I don't care how engineering gets there, but I would not spend 4...5 thousands dollars if I don't have the extra 2.5...3 stops (without going medium frame), because it would continue to limit my ability to take photos, although by a lesser extent.
However, there is one thing to consider (before categorically saying "no" to an improvement of just 1.5 stops), that is, how images actually look at ISO 12800 on a 5D3. I mean, 40D has patterned noise and horrifically limited tonal range at high ISO in the shadows (which shows even worse when I have to lighten images up). So, even if the hardware doesn't provide a 3 stops improvement, the entire processing flow might, and final JPEGs at ISO 12800 from a 5D3 might look as good as JPEGs at ISO 1600 from a 40D.
(By processing flow I mean that with ISO 12800...25600 I could afford to properly expose photos at a high F-number, or even overexpose to counter the low light atmospheric lighting conditions, instead of lightening them up in software, plus apply some Lightroom noise reduction on RAWs.)
This means that I have to wait to see improvements in readout electronics, tonal range increase (in low light and high ISO) and lack of noise patterns (as in 7D).
Upvote
0
But it does have an approx. resolution of 576 megapixels.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
Strange, I saw a mere 60mp cited recently. (i.e. close within range of medium format, though it looks like full frame might get there first).
Most of that data must be thrown away. (Does anybody still believe that "you remember everything you have seen" canard?)
Looking at that page, the focal length given for the eye seems not to take into account the point of what I guess you could call "dense attentiveness," the central points which are less sensitive (from frequent use; Carl Sagan wrote about this in Cosmos) but which make up the point you focus your attention on and which is fairly narrow. The part outside, in most people, seems to be used mainly for peripheral vision. On top of all that, the "wider' view you think you have seems to be a panoramic stitch compiled by the brain, where things you have recently focused on may seem to be in view when they really aren't. If you take a moment and concentrate on the part of what you're looking at right now that is actually sharp, you'll see that it is very narrow and probably shaped like a somewhat flattened oval. I've seen a simulation of it; it's almost as if you were looking through a heavily vignetted lens with an odd shaped image section (can't say circle).
Of course, you can see parts outside this region without any darkening, but perhaps the case is the brain doesn't know how to deal with them. So even if the outside parts of the eye's nerves are formed just like those near the center, the way the brain is thought to work seems to indicate that some of that stated 576MP resolution does not factor into most of your daily viewing, but rather into situations like peripheral vision.
In terms of digital cameras, "Digital Zoom" (i.e. crop zoom) is the closest concept I can compare it to.
It's also worth mentioning that it's a lot harder to return faulty eyes to the store than it is to get a camera replaced. And even when your eyes work well, it takes a long time for sensitivity to adjust. The powerpoint gives a remarkable half hour needed to adjust for nighttime viewing; in early people where artificial lights were less common, this would be fine, but in modern life we move in and out from light to dark situations relatively quickly. The human eye is great indeed, but I don't see the argument for intelligent design working so well in that the human eye doesn't always work as well as a camera in modern situations. (Apologies for the political slant at the end there.)
Most of that data must be thrown away. (Does anybody still believe that "you remember everything you have seen" canard?)
Looking at that page, the focal length given for the eye seems not to take into account the point of what I guess you could call "dense attentiveness," the central points which are less sensitive (from frequent use; Carl Sagan wrote about this in Cosmos) but which make up the point you focus your attention on and which is fairly narrow. The part outside, in most people, seems to be used mainly for peripheral vision. On top of all that, the "wider' view you think you have seems to be a panoramic stitch compiled by the brain, where things you have recently focused on may seem to be in view when they really aren't. If you take a moment and concentrate on the part of what you're looking at right now that is actually sharp, you'll see that it is very narrow and probably shaped like a somewhat flattened oval. I've seen a simulation of it; it's almost as if you were looking through a heavily vignetted lens with an odd shaped image section (can't say circle).
Of course, you can see parts outside this region without any darkening, but perhaps the case is the brain doesn't know how to deal with them. So even if the outside parts of the eye's nerves are formed just like those near the center, the way the brain is thought to work seems to indicate that some of that stated 576MP resolution does not factor into most of your daily viewing, but rather into situations like peripheral vision.
In terms of digital cameras, "Digital Zoom" (i.e. crop zoom) is the closest concept I can compare it to.
It's also worth mentioning that it's a lot harder to return faulty eyes to the store than it is to get a camera replaced. And even when your eyes work well, it takes a long time for sensitivity to adjust. The powerpoint gives a remarkable half hour needed to adjust for nighttime viewing; in early people where artificial lights were less common, this would be fine, but in modern life we move in and out from light to dark situations relatively quickly. The human eye is great indeed, but I don't see the argument for intelligent design working so well in that the human eye doesn't always work as well as a camera in modern situations. (Apologies for the political slant at the end there.)
Upvote
0
N
NotABunny
Guest
Edwin Herdman said:
He is referring to the theoretical resolution of a scene (not photograph) as if it were scanned by a human eye (that is, at its maximum spatial resolution):
Above he also says what the eye resolution is supposed to be when looking at a print:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
